10 Tex. Ct. App. 377 | Tex. App. | 1881
In this case the charge in the indictment was that defendant did “unlawfully keep and exhibit a gaming table for the purpose of gaming.” Only one witness testified. He said, “I know the defendant; he keeps a saloon in the town of Stephensville, Erath
We are of opinion the game here described does not' come within the provisions of arts. 358, 359 and 360, Penal Code, with regard to keeping or exhibiting tables for gaming purposes. Article 359 expressly declares the character and description of the inhibited tables or banks, “ to include every species of gaming device known by the name of table or bank of every kind whatever,” and that this statutory provision “ shall be construed to include any and all games which in common language are said to he played, dealt, kept, or exhibited” Obviously the intention was to prohibit gaming upon tables or' banks made or constructed with a view to certain specific games, in which the table or bank is not only part of the gaming device, but is also necessary to the proper playing of the game. In other words, the table or bank is an essential to the game, and from its peculiar' construction and the manner in which it is operated, forms part of the game. This seems clearly to be the proper meaning of
In article 360 certain other games are specially enumerated as coming within the meaning and intention of these articles, but their enumeration, it is declared, “shall not exclude any other properly coming within the meaning of the two preceding articles.” How, does throwing dice upon a common table, constructed in no manner with any peculiar reference to any particular game, come within the meaning of bank or gaming table, even though used principally for throwing dice upon? And does throwing dice per se come within the prohibited games mentioned in these articles ? We think not. The table is not a part of nor essential to the game; for (if a game) the dice can be thrown as well upon the counter, upon a blanket spread upon the floor, upon a smooth surface of the ground it may be, as upon that table. If the table itself is not a gaming device or bank, then it cuts no figure in the game; it cannot be said to be played, dealt, kept, or exhibited for gaming purposes.
If the table upon which dice are thrown does not come within the prohibited tables or banks,, it follows that ■ throwing dice upon it is not within the statute, because it is not so expressly enumerated with other games in art. 360. “The words ‘played’ and ‘dealt’ have the meaning attached to them in common language. The word ‘ exhibited ’ is intended to signify the act of displaying the bank or game for the purpose of obtaining bettors.” Penal Code, art. 363.
It is true that in some sections of the State the extent to which this evil is carried of throwing dice for money or drinks in saloons for retailing spirituous liquors has become a nuisance in society, and a crying shame to our civilization, besides being the fruitful source of disturbances of the peace and in many instances of bloodshed and murder. Happily our law-givers have appreciated the defects of our statutes in this respect, and, to coun
In the case before us the indictment, though a good one, is not supported by the evidence that dice were thrown upon a common table. At the time the offense is alleged to have been committed, gambling under such circumstances came within none of the rules pertaining to games which were played, dealt, kept, or exhibited for gaming purposes; and because the evidence does not support the charge in the indictment, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.